Have you purchased radiant barriers for under
your concrete slab based on this claim, " reduces radiant
heat loss through floors" or "reflects 97%
of radiant
energy" or "It
reflects up to 97% of radiant heat, the primary mode of heat
loss in basements."? If so you may have been mislead.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them.

The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies
in the U.S. and abroad.

Click the pages below for detailed action by the
FTC against insulation scammers.

True Story...

Section 460.13 of the R-Value Rule requires, “If you are a manufacturer, you must give retailers and installers fact sheets for the insulation products you sell to them.” When asked for a fact sheet one manufacturer replied it didn't have a fact sheet for the product.

Misleading Stuff

This excerpt comes from a industry technical bulletin, "The system R-value of R-1.95 results in an energy savings or reduction in heat loss of 56% when compared to the same concrete floor system without insulation."

The Facts:
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ergo it can not be saved so the only true statement is a 'reduction heat loss' but what they don't tell you is that even with the bubble insulation the R 1.95 is still 256% less than the minimum standards of CSA B214 or 500% below the R10 requirements of many
building efficiency requirements such as those specified in the OBC.

It is irresponsible to make consumers think that a 56% reduction is better than no insulation when it is grossly inadequate.

Misleading Stuff Redux

This text is taken from one manufacturers website, "independent laboratory tests proved that 5/8" of brand x outperforms 6" of fiberglass insulation plus vapour barrier.”

What does The Safety & Buildings Division, Building Products Evaluation, State of Wisconsin note for this manufacturers product?

"The distributor and/or manufacturer may not reference radiant R-values associated with radiant testing of this product in the State of Wisconsin since these tests, and their associated results, are not recognized by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce as a means to demonstrate commercial building code
compliance." See Notes on page 2 and 3 from
the full report.

But unsuspecting consumers visit websites which have no geographic boundaries and read the stuff about independent testing and certifications without having the skills to evaluate it. The manufacturer does this knowing full well that the State of Wisconsin has limited reporting to the conductive and
convective result according to such tests like CAN/ULC S701-01 in accordance with ASTM C518, which states the thermal resistance for a nominal 1” sample of brand x is a nominal R-3.7
Ref. Intertek Testing Report

...and again from another website."

"In a heated slab, Radiation is responsible for 93% of the heat traveling downward."

The
Facts: Two surfaces in contact exchange energy via conduction not radiation.

Another site with ambiguous information where
consumers could be led to believe there is radiant heat loss
where none exist (click to enlarge).

Here is an excerpt from the Federal Trade Commission 16 CFR Part 460 Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade Regulation Rule; Final Rule

The Commission issued the R-value Rule to prohibit, on an industry-wide basis, specific unfair or deceptive acts or practices. When it issued the Rule, the Commission found that the following acts or practices were prevalent in the home insulation industry and were deceptive or
unfair, in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45: (1) Sellers had failed to disclose R-values, and caused substantial consumer injury by impeding the ability of consumers to make informed purchasing decisions; (2) the failure to disclose R-values, which varied significantly among competing home
insulation products of the same thickness and price, misled consumers when they bought insulation on the basis of price or thickness alone; (3) sellers had exaggerated R-values, often failing to take into account factors (e.g., aging, settling) known to reduce thermal performance; (4) sellers had failed to
inform consumers about the meaning and importance of R-value; (5) sellers had exaggerated fuel bill savings that consumers could expect, and often failed to disclose that savings will vary depending on the consumer’s particular circumstances; and (6) sellers had falsely claimed that consumers would qualify
for tax credits through the purchase of home insulation, or that products had been ‘‘certified’’ or ‘‘favored’’ by federal agencies.

CHAPTER 6 ACI 318/318R-65, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, p. 77,
section
R6.3.2 — "The code prohibits the use of aluminum in structural
concrete unless it is effectively coated or covered. Aluminum
reacts with concrete and, in the presence of chloride ions, may
also react electrolytically with steel, causing cracking and/or
spalling of the concrete."

Here some more deceptive text from
an internet reseller:

"However,
without adequate insulation, an efficient heating system will
not work at its full potential because of the portion of
radiant heat being lost into the ground below." accessed April 2009

There is no "radiant" heat being
lost to the ground. There might be heat loss to the ground but
its not transferred by radiant but by conduction.

ASTM International

"Improper installation
of (reflective) insulation can reduce its thermal effectiveness,
cause fire risks and other unsafe conditions, and promote
deterioration of the structure in which it is installed."

Testimonials can be an effective sales and
marketing tool because it preys on some people’s belief that if
others are doing it - it must be good.

Non engineering types frequently use other
people’s statements as a way of making the fear of using a
product or service seem less risky – and here’s the thing –
these people want to believe the hype so bad – they will rely on
testimonials from individuals who are not qualified to evaluate
a product or system.

Let me explain; heat loss to slab is a building
science issue yet many people who sell or use these reflective
barriers for under slab heating have no training in building
science.

We’ve seen testimonials made about comparisons
between two identical buildings where brand x was compared
against brand y. Brand x claims that building A insulated with
their product outperformed building B with brand y. It is
written in such a way that the reader concludes that the slab
insulation was the contributing factor.

While it may be true that building A outperformed
building B but without scientific research one cannot make the
claim that the result was due to the type of under slab
insulation.

If you read testimonials where a product “saved”
or ”reduced” or “lowered” energy use and there is no scientific
research to back up the statement – the claims should be
viewed as speculation -
and not to be relied upon as facts.

Here's another one of our favourite internet
claims under the guise of "NASA" and "space science"...

"Radiant Barriers - Insulation That Saves Money
As You Cool or Heat Your Home...Just as space suits retain the
internal temperature of body heat from the astronaut while
reflecting the cold of space, so does the radiant barrier which
is installed in a family's attic."

Few other
construction frauds have surpassed the length of time that
reflective foil scams have sustained over the decades and
yet educated people still succumb to the deceit year after
year...read on...

Yes...they'rrrre back...the snake
foil faux insulation folks are at it again - see
the latest pitch from the S & M (smoke and mirrors) crowd
in our favourite series on "marketing masquerading as
science", we call it: "Claims on the web"

For the facts: see below for our exhaustive list of science based research reports
and statements from recognized third party authorities such
as building scientists working with the U.S. Department of Energy,
Building America Program, National Research Canada, University of Manitoba,
and the Cold Climate Housing Research Center of Alaska; as well
as advisories from U.S. Federal Trade Commission, States of
Nebraska, Wisconsin and many other jurisdiction from around the world.

When it comes to foil faced insulation and
reflective paints -
beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Since 1979 I've seen building products come and go and none has been as entertaining as the ebb and
flow of insulating products particularly the reappearance of what I call reflective
bubble 'faux' insulation or snake oil foil for under slab radiant applications. This
is a classic case of marketing masquerading as science and solutions looking for problems where none exist.

According to the government run Consumer Sentinel protection services, Shop at Home/Catalogue Sales is one of the highest ranked frauds in North America so if you are considering purchasing reflective bubble "faux" insulation
for underslab applications or any application in cold
climates - either online or at a distribution outlet -
with all due respect to Shakespeare, remember these words -
double bubble with foil is trouble...

Read these excerpts and links from around the world...and make
note of how long this has been going on - starting with
1989:

Barriers to
radiant barriers, Home Energy Journal, 1989
"They have been the subject of much controversy, as the
claims made by many manufacturers were extreme (up to 100%
heat shielding), with the consumer paying high prices for
ineffective devices."

NRC-IRC, Institute for Research in
Construction , 1991
"...multiple reflective materials do not address conduction and convection losses in building envelope cavities well enough to warrant their use in colder climates...The reduction in heat loss suggested by the product literature, however, was not achieved...In terms of
cost, reflective materials are subject to the same principles of diminishing returns as conventional insulation. If it is not cost-effective to add more conventional insulation, it is probably not cost-effective to add a
radiant barrier."

Federal
Trade Commission: Manufacturer of home insulation charged
with
violating r-value rule; will pay civil penalty to settle
complaint, 1992 "the
defendants manufactured, distributed, sold and promoted "Perma
R Plus" home insulation with R-values that were not based on
R-value tests conducted according to the test procedures
required by the rule."

Thermophysical Properties Research Laboratory, Inc, 1997

Beware of
Insulated paint or ceramic paint type products that
claim wild insulation values...Many of the R-values being
presented are being done out of context with the intent to
mislead.

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, 1999
"In determining the R-value of reflective insulation, NAIMA believes evidence supports that the detrimental impact of dusting and corrosion frame the evaluation of thermal performance. The Department of Energy’s ("DOE") "Radiant Barrier Attic Fact Sheet," issued in June 1991, reported
laboratory measurements verifying that dust on the surface of aluminum foil increases the emissivity and decreases the reflectivity. Based on this finding, the DOE concluded that "dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier will reduce its effectiveness.’ Thus,
observed the DOE, reflective insulation installed in locations that collect "dust or other surface contaminant will have a decreasing benefit to the homeowner over time." For instance, when DOE monitored reflective insulation installed in a dusty attic, researchers observed that 50 percent
of the insulation’s effectiveness dissipated after the first year of installation"

Canadian Construction Materials Centre Evaluates Thermal Resistance of Low Emissivity Sheet Material, 1999
"When the
low emissivity sheet material
is installed in the wall system...the effective R-value of this material in combination with the air spaces and the strapping material (furring) used to create the air spaces will account for about 26% of the thermal resistance of the wall, whereas
the low emissivity material itself will account for only about 5%. (The RSI value of the material is in the order of 0.18.)

Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, Insulation Comparison Demonstration, Funded By U.S. Department of Energy, 1999
"Our comparison tracked the amount of energy required to maintain the interior temperature of the three buildings at a constant 72 degrees F. In this demonstration mass insulation, using fiberglass, required less energy to maintain the set point temperature, for all four seasons, than did
either the radiant barrier building...The
radiant barrier building required more energy than the fiberglass building...to maintain the set point temperature for all four seasons. In this specific comparison, the fiberglass insulated building performed the best out of the three buildings."

Building
Standards Saskatchewan Municipal Affairs, Building Officials
Newsletter, 2001
"Clearly, the result of misusing the listings, despite a
builder’s good intentions, could leave a building owner with
a product that has not been demonstrated to perform as
required, and could leave a building official with having to
explain why use of the material (reflective
foil insulation) in this application was
approved."

ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, 2001
"Values for foil insulation products supplied by manufacturers must also be used with caution because they apply only to systems that are identical to the configuration in which the product was tested. In addition, surface oxidation, dust accumulation, condensation, and other factors that
change the condition of the low-emittance surface can reduce the thermal effectiveness of these insulation systems (Hooper and Moroz 1952). Deterioration results from contact with several types of solutions, either acidic or basic (e.g., wet cement mortar or the preservatives found in
decay-resistant lumber)."

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, 2001
"...one can only conclude that the
reflective bubble pack products do not meet the International Mechanical Code (IMC). Since all other model codes incorporate similar if not more stringent requirements, it is unlikely that the reflective bubble pack insulations meet any of the model
mechanical codes."

Aluminium Foil Insulation Association: Beware
of unsubstantiated r-value claims, 2002"It
has recently been brought to AFIA’s attention that some
insulation companies operating in Queensland, may be
promoting
unsubstantiated total in-service computation R-Values
that have not been subjected to independent assessment and
have not been calculated in accordance with current
Australian and International Standards."

Energy Fact Sheet -
Radiant Barriers, Southface Energy Institute, 2002
"Many do not feel the modest winter savings are worth the
risk of moisture problems or the likelihood of dust
accumulation, which could eliminate any savings."

Energy Design Update, November 2003
(A Note on the 2003 Energy Design Update article: You will need a subscription to obtain the complete text wherein several
bubble foil
firms made these apologies), "…apologies to anyone confused by the statement”, “This was an oversight on our part”, “we realized it was erroneous” ,
“apologize for the misconstrued quote”. (To RIMAs credit they are doing their best to curb this behavior but many other unscrupulous firms continue to sell the snake oil foil story for under slab applications to
unsuspecting consumers).

Federal Trade Commission Requirements, 2003
"The R-value Rule specifies substantiation and disclosure requirements for
thermal insulation
products used in the residential market, and prohibits certain claims unless they are true.

CMHC Comparison of
Under Floor Insulation Systems, 2004
"The bubble-pack insulation had a low insulating value compared to the polyurethane panels and the XPS board. It’s cost benefit was the poorest of all insulating materials tested."

Plumbing & HVAC Product News, 2004
“The floor we tested with
bubble foil underneath did not look like it had any insulation underneath,” reported senior researcher in the CMHC policy and research division.

Federal Trade Commission Advisory Letter, 2004
"The FTC staff is aware of claims that are being made in the marketplace for foil-faced bubble pack products (or similar
reflective or radiant barrier products) installed under concrete slabs. In the staff's view, it may be misleading for industry members to suggest that such foil
products will reflect radiant heat when installed under concrete."

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004
"In heating dominated climates, they (radiant barriers) aren't very economical nor recommended in most cases. Unlike other insulation, there currently isn't a standard method for equating
how well a radiant barrier works. Many
manufacturers use the term "equivalent R-value." This really has no scientific meaning, and it often reflects optimum conditions and not necessarily climate conditions."

Bad Science, By John Siegenthaler, P.E., 2005
"Imagine a new insulation material with a claimed R-value almost six times greater than standard extruded polystyrene. So high, in fact, that no other established insulation product even comes close to offering the same R-value/thickness combination. When installed below a
heated slab, this material makes downward heat losses almost nonexistent. How is such spectacular
thermal performance achieved? What have all those scientists at Dow, CertainTeed, Owens Corning and the other insulation giants been missing all these years?"

Building America Best Practices Series: Volume 3 –
Builders and Buyers Handbook for Improving New Home
Efficiency, Comfort, and Durability in the Cold and Very
Cold Climates, US Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005

"Reflective Insulation Systems -
Reflective insulation systems
are fabricated from aluminum foils with a variety of
backings such as roof sheathing, craft paper, plastic film,
polyethylene bubbles, or cardboard. These systems are not
recommended for the cold and very cold climates. If a single
reflective surface is used alone and faces an open space,
such as an attic, it is called a radiant barrier. Radiant
barriers are not recommended for cold and very cold
climates."

The Insulation Council of Australia & New Zealand,
2005
"It appears from the test results that a significant number
of manufacturers and suppliers of insulation products are
not meeting the required standards under the BCA...thermal
performance cannot be left in the hands of manufacturers
(and their trade associations) and must be endorsed by a recognised testing laboratory as per the standard."

Florida Solar Energy Center, 2005
"As in most cases, claims for radiant barriers that sound
too good to be true are too good to be true. If your roof
accounts for less than 20 percent of your cooling load, then
an attic radiant barrier can't possibly save more than 20
percent on your bills...over time,
dust may accumulate on
the surface of foil facing up. The dust will reduce the
radiant barrier effect by allowing the foil to absorb rather
than reflect thermal radiation."

Heating, Refrigeration, Air Conditioning Institute of Canada Advisory Letter
In direct reference to
bubble foil insulation, "Selecting materials that do not meet the minimum code requirements can significant affect comfort for the consumer through excessive wasted heat into the ground and could be a very expensive proposition to rectify the condition."

A study of energy efficient measures for
Part 9 Housing in the Ontario Building Code, 2006
“Reflective
surfaces of insulating materials shall not be considered
in calculating the thermal resistance over building
assemblies.”, A study of energy efficient measures for Part
9 Housing in the Ontario Building Code, for the Ontario
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Report by Lio and
Associates, June 2006

FTC Stops Allegedly False Claims About Insulation Performance
, 2006
"The
FTC complaint alleged that advertising claims for “The Barrier” exaggerated its R-value by over 600 percent compared to test results and misrepresented other
thermal performance characteristics of the insulation. The FTC also charged that labeling for “The Barrier” and Microfoil insulation did not mention the products’ R-values or explain the meaning of R-value, as required by law. The complaint also alleged other violations of the R-value Rule, including the publication of ads comparing “The Barrier” to competing products without disclosing the R-value
for both products."

Multi-foil insulation products Compliance with Reg.7 and Req. L1, 2006
"In other words,
multi-foil manufacturers who have used the comparative testing route are claiming the insulating properties of their product to be approximately three times better than can be verified using existing National or European test standards."

SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS for BUILDINGS, 2006
"Testing undertaken by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) appears to show that a
multi-foil insulation product, when tested in a hot box against the internationally accepted standard for thermal insulation, does not meet claimed insulation values...when tested in accordance with BS EN
ISO 8990:1996."

NHBC Guidance on Multi Foil Insulation, 2006
"The NHBC has recently published guidance regarding multi-foil insulation performance in its Standards Extra, to the effect that multi-foils will not be accepted under its warranty arrangements until a consensus on the performance and testing of these materials is achieved."

TIMSA welcomes clarification of insulation regulations, 2006
"This guidance resolves a growing problem whereby claims for thermal resistance of
multi-foil materials based on arbitrary testing indicated much higher values than have been obtained when these materials are subjected to proven, relevant standard test procedures – sometimes by a factor of
five...over recent years many buildings have been completed with foil materials not certified by accredited bodies which may not even satisfy the standards required by Part L: 2002, putting seriously at risk the Government’s stated intention to raise buildings’ energy performance
standards..."

Energy Design Update , September 2006
"...the statement is kind of deceptive, because it gives the impression that if you use this product
(reflective
insulation), you will cut the heat flow through the wall by two-thirds, and that clearly isn’t true."

Wisconsin Department of Commerce, 2006
"...the state of Wisconsin does not recognize the
reflective
foil facing used on the product...“P2000” reflective
insulation board will only be allotted an R-5 per inch..."

Energy Design Update , September 2006
"...the marketers of
P2000* have made claims about R-value performance that are much higher than those in C-578 and are rightly being challenged to prove it."

Wisconsin Department of Commerce, 2006
"...this product can be installed but no credit will be
given as
under-slab insulation...SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED AS A
STAND ALONE PRODUCT IN LIEU OF THE CURRENT CODE
REQUIREMENTS."

Radiant Panel Association Newsletter, 2007
"Reflective foil under a slab, with no airspace, is totally ineffective as an insulator.
Reflective foil with a bubble or foam core is only slightly more effective than the bubble or foam by itself."

The UK Mineral Wool Association, 2007
"In recent months the government has moved to give guidance on the use of
multi-foil insulation...It has written to all local building control departments and to bodies such as the NHBC...(advising) they could no longer accept the thermal values claimed for (brand x) and similar products"

Sustainability Magazine, 2007
"The architects who specify such products and the building engineers who sign off houses insulated with them may be leaving themselves open to
litigation from clients who will understandably be very angry that their new home is not insulated to the required standard."

"We found no basis for the manufacturer’s
claim of 77% reduction in heat loss due to (brand X) in an
under-slab application. This heat loss reduction
significantly exceeds even that of 2” extruded polystyrene
insulation installed under the full slab, while the
insulating value of (brand X) is much less...We conclude that an
under-slab installation is not a good application for this
type of product (bubble foil), even if only used to replace a vapor
retarder."

This is an excerpt from an advisory from Natural Resources Canada, Released May
2007:

"As a result of countless inquiries from the general public, building contractors and building professionals concerning claims made by manufacturers of foil-faced bubble insulation (FFBI) products, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has prepared this paper dealing with the effective thermal
resistance (RSI/R value) of these and other reflective types of products for the purpose of energy modeling under its energy efficiency housing initiatives."

"...some multi-foil producers have been claiming thermal resistances or U-values based upon unproven, and therefore non-approved, comparative field test methods. These non-approved methods give apparent thermal values significantly better than those obtained using the Hot Box method. TIMSA
does not accept thermal resistance values or U-values based on such methods and advises that such values should not be accepted for any project under current Building Regulations: Part L- 2006."

Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association, 2008
"Claims of high R-values for
reflective products
when they
are used as under concrete insulation are not supported by
any industry or code body accepted testing methods. Products
installed under concrete slabs cannot reflect heat because
there are no air spaces present."

Forest of Dean, District Council, Building Control Newsletter,
2008

"Q. Can I use a multi-foil insulation alone?

A. The latest guidance dated April 2008 that we have been
informed about from the Local Authority Building Control
(LABC) is as follows: The group remain of the opinion that
the thermal performance of all insulation materials should
be determined by testing to National and European standards
by organisations who are accredited to do so. On this basis
there are currently no
multi-foil products that can reach
the current Building Regulation standard when used alone as
a single layer."

The Environmentally Responsible Construction and Renovation
Handbook, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2008
"If
radiant heating sources are embedded in floors-on-ground
or in walls, the assembly must be insulated to a level 20%
better than the maximum overall U-value allowed by the MNECB
tables".

“The results from tests conducted by CCHRC
show that the use of Super ThermŽ or NansulateŽ to achieve
extra energy efficiency in cold climates will not be
effective… Neither product contributed to the
R-value of the building material on which they were
applied.”

Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan's)
validation of new building designs policies and procedures
and interpretation of the Model National Energy Code for
Commercial Buildings (MNECB),
2009

Foil Back Bubble Wrap as insulation (Clarification of
MNECB 3.2.3.3)

"Question: Will using only foil back bubble wrap for
insulation under my radiant slab meet the Model National
Energy Code for Commercial Buildings (MNECB) requirement
3.2.3.3 for Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan’s) validation
service?

Answer: No, using only
foil back bubble wrap will not
meet the MNECB mandatory requirements. A study by the
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Technical Series
04-127) shows a double-layer bubble wrap with an
intermediate foil layer with an equivalent RSI value of only
0.4.

You should note that NRCan’s validation of new building
designs will only recognize results from third-party testing
for products or materials from organizations such as the
Canadian Standards Association and the American Society for
Testing and Materials. "

Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan's)
validation of new building designs policies and procedures
and interpretation of the Model National Energy Code for
Commercial Buildings (MNECB),
2009

"Question:
If a portion of the slab contains
radiant floor heating, must I
insulate under my entire slab
according to the Model National
Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB)
requirement 3.2.3.3-3 for Natural
Resources Canada's (NRCan’s)
validation service?

Answer:To qualify for
NRCan’s validation of new
building designs and to meet the
interpretation of
MNECB 3.2.3.3-3, you must
insulate slabs with imbedded heating
ducts, cables or pipes under their
full area in which radiant heat is
installed as per Table A-3.2.3.1 of
Appendix A. Areas of the slab
without installed heating ducts,
cables or pipes need only comply
with the other requirements of
MNECB 3.2.3.3.

You
must physically isolate the sections
of the slab on grade with installed
heating ducts, cables or pipes from
the unheated parts of the slab,
either by vertical insulation or by
an expansion joint. Or the under
slab horizontal insulation below the
heated sections must extend beyond
the edges of the area being
radiantly heated to a distance of
four times the thickness of the
slab."

State of Nebraska, 2009
"Although the p2000 marketing materials do provide reference
to some ASTM tests being completed – the completed tests
are not the appropriate tests required
under the
R-values
regulations of the Federal Trade Commission regulations."

* P2000 is an EPS insulation manufactured by Polar Industries.

Autodesk / Ecotect, 2009
"...foil by itself does not provide
thermal resistance; foil facing an air space increases the
resistance of the air space. The increase in resistance
achieved by subdividing will be reduced if any air is
allowed to move from one space to another or if the
reflective surface becomes coated with dirt or
condensation."

"The FTC today announced three R-value Rule enforcement
actions – a stipulated final order settling charges against
Enviromate, LLC, and its principal, Phillip A. Geddes; and a
second order against Meyer Enterprises, LLC, Insulated
Solutions, LLC, and Donald L. Meyer; as well as a federal
district court complaint against Edward Sumpolec, doing
business as Thermalkool, Thermalcool, and Energy
Conservation Specialists."

"Simply put, the contribution of
reflective insulation to the building envelope in cold
climate construction is minimal, especially when viewed in
the context of the total R-value of the building envelope."

Dick, K., Fedirchuk, K., Comparison
of Energy Consumption for a Wood Frame Building using Batt
insulation and a Foil Backed EPS Foam Board, University
of Manitoba, 13th Canadian Conference on Building Science
and Technology, Winnipeg, May 10-13, 2011

"Based on this test Foil-Backed FB-EPS required about twice
the energy to maintain a set-point temperature as did
fibreglass batt insulation...FB-EPS was not able to maintain
set-point temperature during a portion of time."

"An Radiant Barrier System (RBS) with a 3.5" gap
has a performance that varies significantly between operating at
a temperature of 140 °F (i.e., a solar heated roof sheathing)
with an R-value of about 10 and a temperature of 0°F (a cold
winter night) with an R-value of only 2.5. Add additional
variables such as dirt accumulation on the barrier and a wide
range of performance values can be quoted. In most cases, the
annual benefit of an RBS relative to an inch of insulation is
small or non-existent:"

U.S. Department of Energy, Radiant Barriers, 2011

"Of course, installing them at all in a cold
climate is not generally cost effective anyway".

"Reflective Films: A common mistake in
RSI value calculations is the assumption that reflective films
contribute thermal resistance in all building assemblies that
incorporate them. In fact, reflective films contribute
resistance only when they are facing an air space, as it is only
then that radiative heat transfer becomes at all significant.
Thus, a reflective film sandwiched between two other materials
will make no significant contribution to the thermal resistance
of an assembly."

Nova Scotia Building Code 2011
Section 10.3.2. Thermal Insulation for Buildings of
Residential Occupancy, item (3)"Reflective surfaces of
insulating materials shall not be considered in calculating the
thermal resistance of building assemblies."

Ontario Building Code 2012
Section 12.3.2. Thermal Insulation for Buildings of
Residential Occupancy, item (3)"Reflective surfaces of
insulating materials shall not be considered in calculating
the thermal resistance of building assemblies."

Better Business Bureau - March 6, 2012 - The
Better Business Bureau of Minnesota and North Dakota (BBB)
is issuing an alert regarding energy saving claims companies
selling
radiant barrier (or attic shield) insulation products
often make. In many cases these companies solicit new
customers by sending them postcards inviting them to free
luncheons, where they're told they will learn how they can
save up to 40% on their energy bills. The BBB is telling
consumers to be wary of these claims and advising them to
ask companies selling these products to substantiate or
prove their claims.

Wisconsin Building Products Evaluation - April12, 2012
Thermal Performance: Perka “P2000” reflective insulation
board shall be installed as allowed by s. SPS 63.303. with
a default R-value of 5 per inch of insulation.
Failure to have ALL assemblies defined in this approval
negates the R-values referenced in this approval, as well as
the approval itself.

"...all of Canada is considered a cold
climate, so these products do not perform as promoted.
Though they are often marketed as offering very high
insulating values, there is no specific standard for radiant
insulation products, so be wary of posted testimonials and
manufacturers’ thermal performance claims. Research has
shown that the insulation value of reflective bubble foil
insulations and radiant barriers can vary from RSI 0 (R-0)
to RSI 0.62 (R-3.5) per thickness of material. The effective
insulating value depends on the number of adjacent dead air
spaces, layers of foil and where they are installed. If the
foil is laminated to rigid foam insulation, the total
insulating value is obtained by adding the RSI of the foam
insulation to the RSI of the dead air space and the foil. If
there is no air space or clear bubble layer, the RSI value
of the film is zero."

A federal court ordered a home insulation
marketer to pay a $350,000 civil penalty for making
deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about his products’
insulation capabilities. On the Federal Trade Commission’s
behalf, the U.S. Department of Justice won the order on the
merits of the case without a trial. The $350,000 figure is
the largest civil penalty awarded in a home insulation case.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy
Resources, April 10th, 2013

"The Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy
Resources has issued an alert to consumers who are
considering the purchase of
radiant barriers in their attics. The Commerce
Department, which has received recent reports of salespeople
pitching the radiant barrier product in flyers and at free
dinners throughout Minnesota, warns consumers that radiant
barriers are not a cost-effective way to reduce heating or
cooling loads in Minnesota"

Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission Advisory:
February 26, 2014
"A local government agency is warning homeowners in the
Roanoke and New River valleys to be “wary” of two
out-of-state companies offering energy efficiency products
locally. The companies,
EnergE Squad of Maryland and American Home Energy Audit of
Minnesota, have mailed postcards inviting recipients to
a free meal and presentation on ways to save energy and
lower utility bills, according to the Roanoke Valley
Alleghany Regional Commission, a regional planning agency."

Do not mislead consumers to believe that having certifications or product listings means that the listing is for the 'claimed' performance.

Do not mislead consumers to believe that buying and having memberships in several industry organization makes the performance claims legitimate.

Do not mislead consumers to believe that participating on industry committees validates the performance claims.

Do not mislead consumers to believe that energy savings or reduced heat transfer from a reflective foil product is a benefit when the benefit is substantially below energy and/or building codes.

Do not mislead consumers with
testimonials that are based on conjecture from those
unqualified to evaluate thermal performances.

Do report how tests are performed and in what context and noting that the reflective component may not be recognized by building officials having
authority.

Do inform consumers that aging of reflective foils potentially includes corrosion, fouling, oxidation and/or accumulation of dust/dirt which reduces performance.

Do communicate that reflective foils under concrete slabs have zero radiant benefits and that "wet cement mortar or the preservatives found in decay-resistant lumber" may deteriorate
some foils.

In my 40 grit opinion, it behoves members
of RIMA to report to the FTC any member or non member
firm exaggerating R-value claims or providing ambiguous
insulation performance characteristics; this includes
"clever" combinations of text and graphics in sales
literature which could be misleading.

Advice to Consumers:

You have to do your homework. Scams related
to insulation have existed for well over 30 years and
despite numerous warnings from authorities consumers to this
day still buy into the claimed "magic powers" of reflective
insulation.

When manufacturers, importers, distributors
and installers can't follow the governing laws and/or make exaggerated claims,
and/or use scientifically unsupported testimonials, and/or make claims without providing context, and/or lead you to believe that having a product certification and/or listing or belong to and/or sit on association committees validates their performance claims,
you are not getting the facts.

Never rely on testimonials from people who
are not qualified to testify.

Be wary of sellers
using words like "equivalent R-value" or "nominal", or "approximately"
or if claims are made to saving, lowering or reducing energy use without
scientific research by a credible organization such as a university or research
institute.

If you buy products in
a jurisdiction which does not recognize the manufactures claims and find yourself in a position of selling your property - knowing what you now know...do you want to have to defend your choice of insulation?

If you have been mislead or have concerns,
call the Federal Trade Commissions toll-free #
1-877-(382-4357)